Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas

An editor had requested comment from other editors for this discussion.The discussion is now closed, please do not modify it.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion did not shed much light on the feasibility of WMF hosting some or all media outside the reach of US copyright law. One outcome was highlighting that the independent, Canada-based Wikilivres can host some media copyrighted in the US but in the public domain in Canada. Rd232 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is a website hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, based in Florida, United States. As a result Commons is subject to US laws, including copyright laws like the DMCA (see COM:DMCA). For related reasons, Commons:Licensing states that media must be "in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."

(the previous heading is not by me) It may be noted that many many projects by the WMF apparently do not need to comply with US law - so if "Commons" is subject to US law is not clear. --Saibo (Δ) 18:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC) (changed my comment after RD's restructuring --Saibo (Δ) 20:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC))

Commons is a US-hosted site run by an organisation headquartered in the US (and whose new Terms of Use includes this on jurisdiction). If you can figure out how Commons might not be subject to US law, please do tell. And since this has always been the case, then, from your point of view, Commons was always "US Commons" (in the sense of having to comply with US laws). Now, are you finally going to accept this, or is it going to take a statement from the WMF legal department? As for the other projects - I think behind that "apparently" is just a lack of enforcement. Rd232 (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not need a "legal department" statement - if you need one, get one. You do notice that Wikimedia does not undertake any steps to get the "illegal" (claim by you and others) deleted, don't you? No, I do not accept US law for public domain PD-old-70 works, very interesting that you even ask me... --Saibo (Δ) 19:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you do need such a statement, so here it is. Quoting part of it: The Foundation will remove media that violates copyright if it has knowledge of the copyright violation. The Foundation will also respond to notice and take-down requests received in compliance with the DMCA... But of course routine review of copyright violations is left to the community. US law applies, and Commons cannot pick and choose which US laws to apply. You clearly object to the copyright restoration on PD material - so do others, and I'm not a fan either. But the law is the law. Commons made an unusual, temporary compromise in the hope the law would be overturned; it wasn't, and hence Commons:Requests for comment/PD review and related efforts is needed to clean up those particular copyright violations. You're quite welcome to "not accept" US law (with whatever consequences that might entail for you - probably none...), but Commons as a whole cannot do that, and if Commons as a whole tried to do that then I rather think the WMF would be forced to step in. At the end of the day, there is consensus to deal with the situation as it exists, and individual attempts to force Commons to act as individuals would like the situation to be are simply disruptive. Rd232 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You may have a consensus with yourself that you want to do this "effort" to delete public domain works. That is not consensus of the Commons community. And also WMF did not tell you to do so. If you would think a bit you would understand that it would not be a clever step for the WMF to publicly state that they do not respect the URAA while being based in the US. --Saibo (Δ) 20:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a DR, there was consensus, and these works are legally no longer in the public domain in the US. WMF said exactly that. And your final sentence is an admission that Commons is subject to US law, isn't it? Besides, a substantial part of the effort of the URAA review is preserving as much content as possible by moving it to local projects, so it's not simple deletion. Nobody wants that. Wouldn't your efforts be better spent in helping to move content to where it can be hosted - and perhaps trying to expand the number of projects that can host it? Rd232 (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Leave your icons in the kindergarten please. Of course you think there was "consensus" because you had drawn the line below it and closed it. Content is not preserved on Commons by moving to away from Commons. Even leaving "Commons" away the content would loose its metadata (categories, templates, ...) and would no longer be accessible by all projects. Your project does not have the aim to preserve Commons. I did not say that I think that "Commons" is subject to US law. Read again. --Saibo (Δ) 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to dispute the DR closure COM:UDEL is that way. Obviously moving content off Commons is worse than keeping it, but it's better than losing it completely. And I didn't say you said that (explicitly), I said it was an "admission" (implicitly). But apparently you're so deeply in denial you don't even recognise what it means to say that "it would not be a clever step for the WMF to publicly state that they do not respect the URAA while being based in the US." given that we all accept (don't we??) that WMF is the legal entity responsible for Commons. Rd232 (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Undel? There was nothing deleted. Also I do not want to dispute your DR closure. Content would only be "lost completely" if it was deleted. --Saibo (Δ) 23:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Also note that all WMF projects are subject to US law. Some projects, such as the English, French and German Wikipedias, use material which is not in the public domain in the United States, but the projects would probably get away with that by claiming fair use under US law. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good point, other projects using materials have the chance to claim fair use. Commons, which merely hosts images, I believe can't, and per Commons:Fair use doesn't try. Rd232 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

German Wikipedia explicitly claims no fair use (and those files wouldn't be okay under enwp's fair use guidelines). Those files are public domain. --Saibo (Δ) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. Commons doesn't exist in splendid isolation - a large part of its mission is serving other Wikimedia projects. That could certainly include working with other projects on how to handle files Commons cannot host. Rd232 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the point 2 of the intro ("The RFC intro summarises past proposals" according to RD232):

Interested users can make a second Commons: create "Commons-US". "Commmons" never was "US Commons" but it was "Commons". --Saibo (Δ) 18:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC) (changed my comment after RD's restructuring --Saibo (Δ) 20:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC), and again per RD's wish 21:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC))

OK, fine. Please explain how "Commons-US" would differ from current Commons, and why creating it would be useful. Rd232 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You can decide how you want to have it - all your decision. The main difference would be that you would follow (only? - like en.wp) US law so you can ban alls pd-old-70 works. You could even set it up with censorship so it is "safe" for work, for children and for grandmas. --Saibo (Δ) 23:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And there I had hopes of you being serious.... Nope, you even drag in off-topic stuff about user-controlled filtering, which seems to have something to do with the US in your mind, though I cannot see why. Well, at least you found time to yet again insult the millions of people who suffer under actual censorship by abusing the term, yet again. Rd232 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to reiterate: current Commons is US-based and must respect US laws. If Commons had been set up by a German organisation, hosted in Germany, it would have to respect German laws. There's nothing mysterious or malicious about this, really there isn't. The "Commons Abroad" idea was trying to explore ways to have a version of Commons not subject to US laws - which would mean making it subject to some other country's laws, barring possible Sealand-type solutions. Rd232 (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia has servers not only in the United States, but also in the Netherlands. I think they should be used to host the files which are in the public domain in the source country and in the Netherlands, but not in the United States. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how feasible that option is either technically (WMF would need to prevent US users accessing those files, I think) or legally (even if it does that, WMF remains based in US, and might still be held liable for copyright violations overseas). Worth exploring, but I'm not optimistic. Rd232 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That would at least help a bit, but some licences such as {{PD-Italy}} would still be subject to problems. But would it be legal to link to the images from WMF projects? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Many Youtube files aren't accessible from Germany for copyright reasons (at least not without using tricks). One could imagine a similar thing for the "Commons-NL" files which are not free in the United States: If they aren't accessible from the US, there should be no copyright problem. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well... I suppose someone could put the idea to Jimbo; I'm not sure the WMF has commented on this concept before. Rd232 (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Wikilivres can legally host all files which should be deleted because of URAA. In case of a massive load increase, the server would probably need to be upgraded, but it is quite fast now. Upload by URL is enabled on Wikilivres, so transfering the files can be done directly from Commons. Help is needed for localization, copying templates, etc. Yann (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - could perhaps be added to COM:OUTLETDIR. But it would need to be clarified how general image hosting works there - I get the impression that it wants images that support its books and other texts. Rd232 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read through much of the huge set of comments on the (since closed) deletion request. I did find some nuggets, like the legal team suggests the images be reviewed individually, but seems like mostly unsupported opinion and shooting from the hip. So apologies if this is redundant, but I thought it appropriate to break out the major hurdles, which I've done, below. Feel free to refactor my work below. --Elvey (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

1) What are the chances that en and other major projects would be tweaked to look automatically here the same way they look automatically on commons when a given file is referenced? (And how is it done?)

2) We should seek an OK and help from wikilivres before we put much effort into this. Someone asked for anything yet? Status?

As far as I know, Yann, who started this discussion, is the maintainer of Wikilivres (see wikilivres:Special:ListUsers/Yann). I take it that this means that we already have contact with Wikilivres. It would probably not be possible to let Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects access images from Wikilivres since they would need fair use rationales and such things. However, Wikilivres could be useful for other users of the images. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Management of Wikilivres has been taken over by Ray Saintonge (Eclecticology), has been moved to wikilivres.ca, and is now hosted by Wikimedia Canada. This removes any doubt about the project reliable on the long term. I think that we can start moving files there, if they would be deleted on Commons. Yann (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, you may wish to take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Various PD-Australia after 1945. Should those files be moved to Wikilivres? They are in the public domain in Canada since they were taken at least 50 years ago. At the point of copyright expiry in Australia, both Canada and Australia had the same copyright term, and Canada also applies the rule of the shorter term on Australian works, so the files should all be free in Canada. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, right. I have a poor connection now with a limit on volume, so I can't do it myself through. Yann (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering... There is User:Commons fair use upload bot which sometimes moves non-free images from Commons to English Wikipedia (and possibly also to other projects). Would it be possible to somehow make the Wikilivres upload process automatic using the code for that bot? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I welcome this idea. I would give bot status on Wikilivres to anyone who want to do it. Yann (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving the servers to a state which doesn't have copyright relations with the United States. Iran would be a possibility. --Claritas (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would actually work as you expect in legal terms. In any case, moving is already very unlikely - moving somewhere like that is even more so. Rd232 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Really ? US courts would have no jurisdiction over our (ab)use of copyrighted content. I agree that there would be logistical issues with such a move. --Claritas (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Optimal? Given the level of censorship applied there and enforced without discussions, too many contents are subject to be deleted at any time if ever there's a, unexpected coranic interpretation of the content, or a minor association with some banned subjects.

It *may* be only optimal for the copyright issue (with US laws), but certainly not with the uncertain legal status of the contents. In addition, it exposes too much legal risks for authors. We've seen authors threatened by fatwas of death only because of their opinion and their contents published completely legally and protected in their own country. This is a serious enough issue that IRan is definitely not the place of choice for any free publication (free as freedom, including basic freedom of speech without risking our own lives).

The other problem is that given Iran does not honor international copyright laws, it can reuse any content he wants by lifting all licence restrictions, including those required by free licences: keeping author names unaltered, keeping the names of sources, keeping the first publication date, and changing the licence without discussion, or restricting it more (e.g. transforming public domain to private properties for exclusive use in Iran).

This does not mean that we can't provide contents to Iran, but that long term service and conservation is not warrantied. And if ever some authors abuse the Iranian laws, the whole service would be banned immediately, including lots of contents.

Finally, the Internet links with Iran are very erratic. They are stopped and restarted in various periods, only as political pressures, or in reaction to some International news or events. We need a more stable location ! Even Iranian authors (of all medias) are seeking to republish their contents in other countries, as much as they can, because their local work (initially made in locally legal conditions) is frequently abused by the local government, or by some powerful religious groups that absolutely don't even care about the official Iranian law, that they have also the power to change at any time, including retroactively to avoid legal suites for their past illegal activities (immediately made legal after such laws). verdy_p (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not storing files according to the country of the author, as indicated in the copyright notice and licence ? All files would then be tagged mandatorily with the indication of this country.

There may be several authors after that, in which case additional country codes could be added, but if there are conflicting modifications, some modifications in a versioned file could be hidden when browsing Commons with a country filter. Then we can have files being stored physically on servers hosted in locations where laws are distinctive. E.g. a location in US, another in Russia, another in the European Union, another in P.R. of China, another one in Iran. These locations would only mirror the contents that are compatible.

Note that the public domain is very problematic ! There does not exist any worldwide public domain. All public domains are specific to each country, and what is completely free for reuse by every one for any kind of activity in a country in its public domain, may be severely restricted by copyright laws elsewhere.

I really think that we should stop supporting the so called "public domain" and instead ask to people to use a free licence citing the original author, and his first date of publication. Even if this appears as if it was a restriction, it will be less risky, because such restrictions by applying a licence to a content in the public domain of a country is perfectly legal in that same country, and then protected internationally. For that licences like CC-BY-SA (which keep the country of origin and which is written in such a ways to comply with the legal system of a country, or group of countries like the European Union) are suitable (we can still credit the orignal author, saying that the file is in public domain in his origin country, so that this minimizes the impact of this restriction by the licence). verdy_p (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be good to store images in a source country where such images are public domain. One of such country that is very affected by UNRA is Japan. UNRA affect those images that are from 1946-1961 and that have the template {{PD-Japan-organization}}. Over 2300 images use {{PD-Japan-organization}} (I do not know how many of them are <1946 and how many of them are from 1946-1961). Those very useful images can be freely used everywhere except of the USA. I hope that Wikimedia Foundation will found some way how to store those images and how to legally use them on all wikiprojects including English Wikipedia. --Snek01 (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there any US state that has less restrictive copyright related laws? Transferring all to such state would allow still take advantages from the USA laws and reach additional new advantages. --Snek01 (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

All US states have the same copyright laws. The solution would be to move the servers to a different country, but that would presumably in turn mean different problems with other material. The United States is not the only country in which the images are unfree. For example, it seems that a {{PD-Japan-organization}} poster is copyrighted for 70 years since publication in Colombia whereas they enter the public domain in Japan after just 50 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The relevant (for us) copyright law of the US is federal law. The only US state copyright provisions that I know of are those of Florida and California which, similar to the US federal government, put works by state employees, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties, in the public domain. Template:PD-FLGov and Template:PD-CAGov. --Rosenzweigτ 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why can't we accept the files under US fair use (in the legal sense)? I'll explain how this can satisfy both of our needs.

Regarding the legal side: We're an educational website, so fair use should be OK for many images. (Of course there are some images it would be hard to make a fair use case for, but a lot of images are fine.)

Regarding our free content mission: Morally, content ought to be considered free depending entirely on its status in its source country, in my opinion. The current requirement of being free in the US is related to legal matters rather than matters of principle. When we say "no fair use," we're thinking of the wiki version of fair use rather than the legal definition of fair use. We can use fair use as a way to comply with US law, but for our mission purposes it isn't really fair use because it's free in its source country, and that's all that matters (in principle). For our reusers, maybe we can put a big notice so that US reusers know not to use that content. In any case, in every other country we already have a lot of content that cannot be reused. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 08:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've wondered about the strict Commons:Fair use policy as well. I think the general prohibition against fair use is motivated by the idea that (i) fair use may require use - files not in use may not qualify, and there's no guarantee Commons files will be in use (ii) reusers may not be aware of a file being fair use (if copied from another page in the same project, or another project). (iii) "fair use" is a US law, and equivalents around the world vary, and those laws may apply as well in some situations at least (Commons:lex loci protectionis). The first point is particular to Commons and could probably be addressed by technical measures (detect fair use files not in use, delete). The others also apply similarly to other Wikimedia projects, but there's some sense that those projects are "targeted" at certain language audiences and therefore countries, which ... somehow sort of makes it OK. Rd232 (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

For (iii), we don't care that fair use is only a US law. It's just a way to justify the legality of hosting files on a US server. The important part is that it is free in the country of origin. For (i), interesting; US fair use law is not the most clear, so we'll have to look at case law. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.